[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 147 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6848-H6856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3192, HOMEBUYERS ASSISTANCE ACT

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 462

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3192) to 
     provide for a temporary safe harbor from the enforcement of 
     integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan 
     transactions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 
     of 1974 and the Truth in Lending Act, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     October 12, 2015, through October 19, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act. H. Res. 
462 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3192. The 
resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The 
resolution also provides a motion to recommit for the bill. In 
addition, the rule provides the normal recess authorities to allow the 
chair to manage pro forma sessions during next week's district work 
period.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the 
underlying legislation.
  For more than 30 years, Federal law has required lenders to provide 
two different disclosure forms to consumers applying for a mortgage. 
The law also has generally required two different forms at or shortly 
before the closing on the loan. Two different Federal agencies 
developed these forms separately under two different statutes: the 
Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, and the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act of 1974, or RESPA.
  The Truth in Lending Act provides meaningful disclosure of credit 
terms to enable consumers to compare credit terms available in the 
marketplace more readily and avoid the uninformed use of credit.
  The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 exists to ensure 
that consumers are provided with greater and more timely information on 
the nature and costs of their residential real estate settlement 
process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges 
caused by certain abusive practices that Congress found and made sure 
that we got rid of.
  On November 20, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
finalized the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule, or TRID, which 
combined these two forms that had been separated for 30 years so that 
consumers can receive uniform information on one form on both their 
TILA and RESPA information. The new disclosures are generally referred 
to as the ``combined'' or ``integrated'' disclosures.
  The Integrated Disclosure rule requires loan originators who receive 
an application to provide consumers a loan estimate form that combines 
the initial TILA disclosure and the Good Faith Estimate.
  While intended to streamline the current duplicative disclosure 
regime under TILA and RESPA, the Integrated Disclosure rule poses 
significant implementation and compliance challenges. It makes 
significant changes to the origination, processing, and closing of 
mortgage loans; requires business decisions at all stages of the 
transaction; and includes difficult to understand timing and delivery 
requirements and other practical implementation issues that go beyond 
the form and content requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we are discussing today is very substantial. In 
fact, it is in front of me. It has 1,888 pages of new requirements. 
This is a massive regulatory change, and there needs to be time to 
adjust to its implementation. I think we all agree on that. I heard 
yesterday, in the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee agree that there does need to be time to adjust to 
the implementation.
  In fact, just this last week, I was in Chillicothe, Ohio, visiting 
the offices of a real estate company that had a title agency next door, 
a closing agency, and they were very concerned about the potential harm 
to home buyers that might see their closings delayed or, in fact, the 
whole process just seized up if we don't figure out how to implement 
this regulation in a thoughtful way and allow time for transition.
  As I said, everyone agrees that less paperwork and more streamlined 
processes are positive steps for Congress and the regulators to 
encourage. However, given the complexity of the Integrated Disclosure 
rule, I believe Congress must also give those affected by this rule 
time to implement the changes in a thoughtful way.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and over 250 of our colleagues in the House, signed a letter in May 
asking the Director of the CFPB, Richard Cordray, to implement a ``hold 
harmless'' period for parties affected by the rule as they attempt to 
comply with the new regulations. I will submit a copy of that letter 
for the Record.

[[Page H6849]]

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2015.
     Hon. Richard Cordray,
     Director,
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
       Dear Director Cordray: The undersigned Members of Congress 
     acknowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     (CFPB or Bureau) has done significant work on the TILA-RESPA 
     Integrated Disclosure (TR-ID) regulation. Nevertheless, this 
     complicated and extensive rule is likely to cause challenges 
     during implementation, which is currently scheduled for 
     August 1, 2015, that could negatively impact consumers. As 
     you know, the housing market is highly seasonal, with August, 
     September, and October consistently being some of the busiest 
     months of the year for home sales and settlements. By 
     contrast, January and February are consistently the slowest 
     months of the year for real estate activity. We therefore 
     encourage the Bureau to announce and implement a ``grace 
     period'' for those seeking to comply in good faith from 
     August 1st through the end of 2015.
       Even with significant advance notice, understanding how to 
     implement and comply with this regulation will only become 
     clear when the industry gains experience using these new 
     forms and processes in real-life situations. As the TRID 
     regulation does not provide lenders an opportunity to start 
     using the new disclosure form prior to the August 1st 
     implementation date, market participants will not be able to 
     test their systems and procedures ahead of time, which 
     increases the risk of unanticipated disruptions on August 
     1st. That is why we believe that a grace period for those 
     seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the 
     end of 2015 would be particularly useful in these 
     circumstances. During this time, industry can provide data to 
     the CFPB on issues that arise so that the Bureau and industry 
     can work together to remove impediments to the effectiveness 
     of the rule.
       Thank you for your time and consideration. If we may be of 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
       Ralph Abraham; Alma Adams; Robert Aderholt; Pete Aguilar; 
     Rick Allen; Mark Amodei; Lou Barletta; Andy Barr; Joe Barton; 
     Joyce Beatty; Dan Benishek; Donald S. Beyer; Gus Bilirakis; 
     Sanford Bishop; Mike Bishop; Marsha Blackburn; Madeleine 
     Bordallo; Charles Boustany; Brendan Boyle; Kevin Brady.
       Dave Brat; Jim Bridenstine; Mo Brooks; Susan Brooks; Julia 
     Brownley; G.K. Butterfield; Bradley Byrne; Lois Capps; 
     Michael Capuano; Tony Cardenas; John Carney; Earl L. 
     ``Buddy'' Carter; Kathy Castor; Steve Chabot; David 
     Cicilline; Katherine Clark; Emanuel Cleaver; Mike Coffman; 
     Tom Cole; Chris Collins.
       Doug Collins; Barbara Comstock; Gerald E. Connolly; John 
     Conyers; Paul Cook; Jim Costa; Ryan Costello; Joe Courtney; 
     Kevin Cramer; Henry Cuellar; John Culberson; Diana DeGette; 
     John Delaney; Mark DeSaulnier; Scott DesJarlais; Ted Deutch; 
     Debbie Dingell; Bob Dold; Sean Duffy; Jeff Duncan.
       Keith Ellison; Renee Ellmers; Tom Emmer; Eliot Engel; Anna 
     Eshoo; Elizabeth H. Esty; Stephen Fincher; Michael 
     Fitzpatrick; Chuck Fleischmann; John Fleming, M.D.; Randy 
     Forbes; Jeff Fortenberry; Bill Foster; Virginia Foxx; Trent 
     Franks; Rodney Frelinghuysen; John Garamendi; Scott Garrett; 
     Bob Gibbs; Chris Gibson.
       Bob Goodlatte; Trey Gowdy; Gwen Graham; Kay Granger; Garret 
     Graves; Tom Graves; Al Green; Morgan Griffith; Glenn 
     Grothman; Frank Guinta; Brett Guthrie; Richard Hanna; Gregg 
     Harper; Alcee Hastings; Denny Heck; Jaime Herrera Beutler; 
     Jody Hice; Brian Higgins; French Hill; Jim Nimes.
       Ruben Hinojosa; George Holding; Mike Honda; Richard Hudson; 
     Tim Huelskamp; Jared Huffman; Bill Huizenga; Randy Hultgren; 
     Robert Hurt; Steve Israel; Evan Jenkins; Lynn Jenkins; Eddie 
     Bernice Johnson; Bill Johnson; David Jolly; Walter Jones; 
     John Katko; William R. Keating; Mike Kelly; Joe Kennedy.
       Dan Kildee; Derek Kilmer; Ron Kind; Peter King; Steve King; 
     Adam Kinzinger; John Kline; Ann McLane Kuster; Raul Labrador; 
     Doug LaMalfa; Leonard Lance; Rick Larsen; John B. Larson; 
     Robert Latta; John Lewis; Ted Lieu; Dan Lipinski; Frank A. 
     LoBiondo; Dave Loebsack; Zoe Lofgren.
       Mia Love; Frank Lucas; Ben Ray Lujan; Michelle Lujan 
     Grisham; Cynthia Lummis; Stephen Lynch; Sean Patrick Maloney; 
     Carolyn Maloney; Kenny Marchant; Tom Marino; Thomas Massie; 
     Betty McCollum; James P. McGovern; Patrick McHenry; David 
     McKinley; Mark Meadows; Patrick Meehan; Luke Messer; John 
     Mica; Jeff Miller.
       Gwen Moore; Mick Mulvaney; Patrick Murphy; Grace 
     Napolitano; Dan Newhouse; Kristi Noem; Richard Nolan; Rich 
     Nugent; Pete Olson; Bill Pascrell; Erik Paulsen; Donald M. 
     Payne, Jr.; Steve Pearce; Ed Perlmutter; Chellie Pingree; 
     Robert Pittenger; Mark Pocan; Ted Poe; Bruce Poliquin; Mike 
     Pompeo.
       Bill Posey; David Price; Tom Price, M.D.; Charles Rangel; 
     Tom Reed; Dave Reichert; Jim Renacci; Reid Ribble; Kathleen 
     Rice; Tom Rice; Cedric Richmond; Scott Rigell; Martha Roby; 
     Mike Rogers; Harold Rogers; Todd Rokita; Peter Roskam; Dennis 
     Ross; Keith Rothfus; David Rouzer.
       Ed Royce; Bobby Rush; Steve Russell; Tim Ryan; Matt Salmon; 
     David Schweikert; David Scott; Bobby Scott; Jim 
     Sensenbrenner; Pete Sessions; Terri Sewell; Brad Sherman; 
     Bill Shuster; Mike Simpson; Kyrsten Sinema; Albio Sires; 
     Louise Slaughter; Jason Smith; Adrian Smith; Chris Smith.
       Jackie Speier; Steve Stivers; Marlin Stutzman; Mark Takano; 
     Mike Thompson; Glenn `GT' Thompson; Pat Tiberi; Dina 
     Titus; Paul Tonko; David Trott; Michael Turner; Fred 
     Upton; Chris Van Hollen; Juan Vargas; Filemon Vela; Ann 
     Wagner; Tim Walberg; Mark Walker.
       Jackie Walorski; Maxine Waters; Randy Weber; Daniel 
     Webster; Peter Welch; Brad Wenstrup; Bruce Westerman; Lynn 
     Westmoreland; Ed Whitfield; Roger Williams; Joe Wilson; 
     Robert J. Wittman; Rob Woodall; John Yarmuth; David Young; 
     Todd Young.

  Mr. STIVERS. Yet here we are today, just a couple of months later, 
and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to 
argue that we shouldn't institute that very same hold harmless period 
by passing this bill. As I said, I think they agree with it. There may 
be other things in the bill that we can talk about that they have a 
problem with, but we all need to pass this bill, because we have to 
have a hold harmless period to make sure that people that want to close 
and buy a house and people that want to provide them that service can 
do so as we implement this new regulation.
  Almost half the Democrats on the Financial Services panel agree that 
this hold harmless provision should be in place. The vote on the 
Financial Services Committee was 45-13.
  Mr. Speaker, just last week, the Financial Services Committee held a 
hearing entitled, ``The Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection,'' at which Director Cordray testified and fielded 
several questions about these new rules. When asked by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) whether he would implement a grace period that 
would allow folks to find their way through this--Realtors and title 
agents--so they could count on not being the focus of enforcement, 
Director Cordray responded:
  ``Look, I don't think it is appropriate for me to say I won't enforce 
the law when my job is to enforce the law, but I think what I have said 
says to them that we are going to be diagnostic and corrective, not 
punitive, in that early period. I think if they read between the lines, 
they will understand that we are trying to allow them the latitude that 
they have asked for. And I think people should be able to take `yes' 
for an answer.''
  The problem is that is not ``yes'' for an answer, it is unclear, and 
that is why this bill is so important--because it is clear. This will 
make sure that we provide an implementation period that allows a hold 
harmless period for industry participants.
  Just 2 days later, in fact, in a letter sent by some industry groups 
asking for this same request of a hold harmless period, Director 
Cordray refused to say he would institute a hold harmless period. So 
even though what he said to the committee sounded like he is going to 
try to do it, he said to them that he would not be able to institute a 
hold harmless period.
  I think there are clearly some inconsistencies there that mean that 
we need to pass this bill. This bill will ensure we hold harmless 
almost everybody who does this instead of doing it with a wink and a 
nod.

                              {time}  1245

  Sixty percent of the House, I believe, is supportive, and we will 
see. Obviously, we have a vote to take on this. But we signed a letter 
that asked for this. So I believe that you will see a pretty good 
bipartisan vote today.
  This massive regulatory undertaking needs to be implemented in a 
thoughtful way. That is all this two-page bill does, is create a safe 
harbor for enforcement until February 1 of 2016.
  It also includes a good faith exception to ensure that, if somebody 
acts in good faith, they also will not be subject to legal action, just 
like they won't be subject to enforcement action.
  And let me be clear. That only applies to somebody that acts in good 
faith. The courts have dealt with good faith exceptions on many other 
issues. It is clear that the courts understand what good faith is, and 
that will be litigated case by case, whether somebody was acting in 
good faith.
  If they were acting in good faith, there won't be any legal action. 
If they weren't acting in good faith, there will still be the right of 
private action.

[[Page H6850]]

  You will hear that from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
that this somehow relieves the right of private action. It does not. It 
just ensures that there is a good faith exception.
  If somebody was just trying to do everything right, but missed a 
comma or a period or accidentally did something in trying to comply, 
then they will have that defense in court and be able to ask the case 
to be withdrawn.
  This hold harmless provision ensures that borrowers and lenders and 
realty agents and others won't be forced to delay closings as they 
figure out how to deal with almost a 1,900-page rule.
  I look forward to debating this bill with my colleagues on the other 
side.
  I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong opposition to 
this closed rule which provides for the consideration of H.R. 3192, the 
so-called Homebuyers Assistance Act.
  Today's rule marks the 42nd closed rule we have considered during the 
114th Congress, the 42nd. More than half of all the rules we have 
reported out of the Rules Committee have been closed, completely 
closed, and a majority of the bills the Rules Committee has sent to the 
floor have drawn a veto threat. This bill is no exception.
  I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy 
saying: ``If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.''

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


                  H.R. 3192--Homebuyers Assistance Act

                  (Rep. Hill, R-AR, and one cosponsor)

       Americans deserve clear and easy to understand disclosures 
     of the cost of buying and financing a home, which is why the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to 
     streamline conflicting disclosures that were required under 
     the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act. The Know Before You Owe regulation issued by 
     the CFPB almost two years ago fulfills this mandate by 
     requiring mortgage lenders and settlement agents to provide 
     homebuyers with simpler forms that explain the true cost of 
     buying their home at least three days before closing. This 
     summer, the CFPB extended the effective date for these 
     requirements by two months, to last Saturday, October 3, 
     2015, to provide for a smooth transition and avoid 
     unnecessary disruptions to busy families seeking to close on 
     a new home at the beginning of the school year.
       H.R. 3192 would revise the effective date for the Know 
     Before You Owe rule to February 1, 2016, and would shield 
     lenders from liability for violations for loans originated 
     before February 1 so long as lenders made a good faith effort 
     to comply.
       The CFPB has already clearly stated that initial 
     examinations will evaluate good faith efforts by lenders. The 
     Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3192, as it would 
     unnecessarily delay implementation of important consumer 
     protections designed to eradicate opaque lending practices 
     that contribute to risky mortgages, hurt homeowners by 
     removing the private right of action for violations, and 
     undercut the Nation's financial stability.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. When the Republicans took the majority in 2011, Speaker 
Boehner and the entire Republican leadership promised the Democrats a 
right to ``a robust debate in open process.'' He promised us the 
opportunity to ``make our case, offer alternatives, and be heard.''
  Instead, the Speaker has presided over the most closed Congress in 
the history of the United States of America, and Democratic 
alternatives are often prevented from coming to the floor.
  By the way, not only are Democratic alternatives prevented from 
coming to the floor, Republicans can't even bring amendments to this 
bill because it is totally closed.
  Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are meeting as 
a conference tomorrow to choose a nominee to become the next Speaker 
and have other leadership battles ahead.
  I hope that they are able to have an honest discussion about the 
ability to work through regular order and an open process that allows 
the House of Representatives to work its will and for both parties to 
be heard.
  Now, maybe my friend from Ohio can help me understand why an 
amendment offered by the ranking member of the committee of 
jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, an amendment that would protect consumers, 
was not made in order.
  I mean, we would have preferred an open rule. We would have preferred 
that many amendments would be made in order. But the ranking member of 
the committee of jurisdiction had an amendment that is germane to this 
bill, and it wasn't made in order.
  I don't quite understand it. One amendment, just one. Maybe it was an 
oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we amend this rule and that 
the Waters amendment be allowed so that we can debate it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio yield for the 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STIVERS. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Just one amendment. That is it. Just one. I am not 
asking for two. I am just asking for one.
  Mr. STIVERS. Will the gentleman yield me time to respond to his 
question?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STIVERS. I thank the gentleman.
  I happen to serve on the Financial Services Committee with the 
ranking member, and that idea was not offered in the committee. So it 
was a new idea.
  I will tell you that it sort of conflicts with the good faith 
exception because what her amendment said was that nothing would get in 
the way of somebody's private right of action.
  The whole point of the good faith exception in the bill is to ensure 
that judicial proceedings happen the same way as administrative 
proceedings.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, so the excuse is that this was not 
made in order because the ranking member did not offer this in 
committee.
  Who cares? We have a debate on the House floor. This is supposed to 
be a deliberative body. We are supposed to be able to debate these 
things.
  The gentleman did not say it was not germane. The gentleman did not 
say it needed special waivers to be made in order.
  He just said: Hey, she didn't bring it up in the full committee. So 
we decided in the Rules Committee to say no, you don't have the right 
to be able to offer this and debate it.
  Please. I mean, come on. This place is becoming a place where serious 
issues are not even allowed to have a debate. I am not even asking you 
to vote for it. I am just saying to allow there to be some debate.
  When I travel to my district, Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents 
who are fed up with this Congress. They are fed up with the process. 
They always want to know: Why can't you at least debate important 
issues that are relevant to our lives?
  It is hard to explain that the Republicans just want to shut 
everything out, and this bill is no exception.
  I talk to people who think this place is no longer a serious 
legislative body, and they have a point because we don't really debate 
serious things anymore.
  We have things like this Benghazi commission that has cost the 
taxpayers millions of dollars, that the Republican majority leader 
admitted, on a very conservative TV station, that it was nothing but a 
political ploy to try to get Hillary Clinton's poll numbers down.
  I guess it didn't come as any surprise to me. It came as a surprise 
that he was so candid in his admission of what this was all about.
  There is time to debate a special select committee to yet do another 
investigation of Planned Parenthood. We don't even know how much that 
is going to cost because, when it was brought before the Rules 
Committee

[[Page H6851]]

last night, there was no amount of money that was provided or told they 
would need.
  So that will be millions and millions of more dollars that the 
taxpayers will have to come up with in order to fund another political 
witch hunt.
  There is time for these political maneuvers, but there is no time for 
serious debate on serious issues? It is just wrong.
  We are not focusing on priorities that matter to people. My 
constituents want to know what we are doing to make college more 
affordable. Are we doing anything to help create jobs, to create 
economic opportunity?
  But we are not working on these priorities. We have become kind of an 
arm of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, where 
everything is politically charged, everything has to be a wedge issue.
  Here we are today bringing to the floor legislation that is going 
nowhere, bills that will likely not be taken up by the Senate and, as I 
mentioned, will be vetoed by the President of the United States. So 
this is business as usual.
  The Dodd-Frank financial reform law required the CFPB to combine the 
disclosure forms required under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real 
Estate Settlement Procedures Act into a single unified form.
  On October 3 of this year, the final TILA-RESPA rule took effect, 
giving consumers a clearer understanding of the costs of buying and 
financing a home.
  The underlying bill establishes a hold harmless period through 
February 1, 2016, where lenders would not be liable for violations of 
the rule requirements so long as they made a good faith effort to 
comply.
  But the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, comprised 
of the prudential regulators, has already agreed to restrained 
supervisory authority during the initial implementation of the rule, 
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has implemented a 
restrained enforcement period.
  So what are we doing here, Mr. Speaker?
  Throughout this process, CFPB has demonstrated its desire to get this 
rule right. They have worked with us. They have responded to the 
letters that we have signed. They have listened. They do what we want 
them to do.
  The Bureau has engaged with industry to ensure smooth implementation 
of the rule and has been responsive to the concerns addressed by 
stakeholders and all of us.
  In fact, last May, as the gentleman pointed out, 250 Members of 
Congress joined together on a bipartisan basis to urge the CFPB to 
announce and implement a grace period for those seeking to comply in 
good faith from August 1 to the end of 2015.
  If the regulators have promised to carefully consider an entity's 
good faith efforts to comply with the new rule while monitoring for 
compliance, why do we need a legislative fix? Why do we need to 
micromanage the CFPB?
  But, to be honest with you, this bill--and this is where the problem 
is--it goes beyond more than redundancy. If my colleagues have nothing 
better to do but pass things that are basically redundant, I can go 
along with that. But this goes beyond redundancy.
  Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond simply providing good faith 
actors a grace period. This bill also strips borrowers of the 
opportunity to seek legal recourse under the Truth in Lending Act 
during this period. It would shift to the consumer the burden of 
proving a lender acted in bad faith and prevent consumers from even 
having the opportunity to have their day in court.
  So let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. We support a grace period for 
lenders acting in good faith. And if that is what this was all about, 
you could have brought this up under suspension and it would have just 
sailed through.
  Director Cordray of the CFPB also supports a grace period and has 
agreed to one. The regulators have responded to requests from industry 
and have outlined their policy for examination and supervision during 
this transition period.
  But I am very concerned with the road that we are traveling down. 
Home buyers should have access to the courts if a lender acts in bad 
faith. I can't understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are so intent on taking this critical consumer protection away.
  Now, as I mentioned earlier, my friend, the ranking member of the 
committee of jurisdiction, Maxine Waters, offered an amendment last 
night in the Rules Committee to improve this bill, to restore the 
private right of action under the Truth in Lending Act that is 
suspended by H.R. 3192.
  Now, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think that 
her amendment has merit, they could debate that and they could vote 
against it. Instead, what they have done is brought a rule to the floor 
that prohibits Ranking Member Waters from even offering that amendment.

  It is germane. It is relevant. It is a serious concern for those of 
us who care about consumers. But we don't have that opportunity. We 
don't have that opportunity. Totally closed rules. Totally closed 
process.
  So the Republicans have prevented that important amendment from 
reaching the floor, and we are not going to have an opportunity to 
debate that today.
  So I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this 
rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
  I would especially make an appeal to some of my Republican friends on 
the basis of process. I know a lot of my Republican friends are getting 
sick and tired of this kind of heavy-handed approach to important bills 
when the Rules Committee just shuts everybody out. If you want that to 
stop, then we need more votes with us opposing these closed rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks, Mr. Speaker, I agree 
with him that we should have more time to debate serious issues. In 
fact, this bill should have been on the suspension calendar, but the 
ranking member of the Financial Services Committee refused to sign off 
on putting it on the suspension calendar. If it would have been on the 
suspension calendar, we would have had more time to discuss and debate 
other issues.
  I would like to read from the bill, since we deemed the bill read, 
and I will start in the middle of line 9.
  ``Regulations issued under such sections may not be enforced against 
any person until February 1, 2016, and no suit may be filed against any 
person for a violation of such requirements occurring before such a 
date, so long''--this is the key part--``so long as such person has 
made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements.''
  So the arguments that the gentleman from Massachusetts just made 
about somebody deeming in bad faith, they would not be covered by that 
part of the bill. It is black and white. It is really clear.
  And I am curious if the gentleman from Massachusetts would enter into 
a colloquy with me.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to enter 
into a colloquy with me because I have a question.
  If the CFPB did indeed institute a grace period for individuals, yet 
those same individuals chose to file suit without the language on a 
grace period for lawsuits with good faith compliance, would there 
indeed be a grace period at all?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  Mr. STIVERS. Reclaiming my time, no, there would not, because if they 
can file lawsuits that the law--we haven't changed the law. In fact, 
all we have added is a good faith exception that allows somebody to 
defend themselves and get a lawsuit dropped. So there is nothing in 
this bill that would protect anybody that acts in bad faith.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This bill shifts to the consumer the burden of proving 
a creditor acted in bad faith, and that puts more of the burden on the 
consumer. If that is what the gentleman wants to do, fine. We have a 
disagreement. We want the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine 
Waters) to be able to have her amendment so we can debate that issue.
  Mr. STIVERS. I would disagree with you. It does not shift the burden. 
The

[[Page H6852]]

individual has to have the burden of proof that they acted in good 
faith. It does not say anything about the consumer showing somebody 
acting in bad faith. The individuals defending themselves have to prove 
to the court that they acted in good faith. There is no shift of the 
burden here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The burden is on the consumer here.
  If we have a disagreement here, let's have an amendment; let's have 
that debate, and let's vote on it. That is all I am asking.
  We disagree. I think I am right, and I think you are wrong, but let's 
have that debate.
  Mr. STIVERS. The problem with the amendment was it would have 
conflicted with that good faith language.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Then vote against it.
  Mr. STIVERS. And somebody could have pointed to that section and 
said: See, nothing can take away my right to sue. This good faith 
exception takes away my right to sue. Even though they acted in good 
faith, that denies me a right. So it was conflicting language.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I disagree with your analysis, but we should have a 
debate on the amendment.
  What is wrong with bringing this amendment up and debating it? That 
was the question.
  Mr. STIVERS. I hear your point there, but I can tell you that if we 
would have debated the amendment, I believe that it would have been 
defeated.
  Frankly, the problem with it was, if it would have been narrowly 
crafted to keep the good faith exception, I would have been okay with 
it.
  I do believe that we should be debating serious issues. I do believe 
that the private right of action is kept in tact.
  There is only a good faith exception. And the burden is on the 
individual who the lawsuit will be brought against to prove that they 
acted in good faith. That is how it works.
  Nobody is going to have to prove that they acted in bad faith. They 
are going to have to prove they acted in good faith. Nobody is going to 
give them a wink and a nod and the benefit of the doubt. The 
individuals who are being sued will have to prove that they acted in 
good faith.
  And you made the regulatory accommodations for a grace period but not 
the accommodations in the legal system; there is no grace period at 
all. It just takes away the entire grace period, because anybody that 
wants to sue just goes ahead and sues. It doesn't matter that there is 
a grace period administratively; there is a grace period in the law. 
That is why the good faith exception is so important.
  I wanted to address those issues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to be more orderly 
in the process of yielding and reclaiming time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we have some serious disagreements with the gentleman over how 
this bill, in our opinion, adversely impacts consumers. This good faith 
exception is not in the current law as it stands. This is new ground 
that this bill is moving us toward, and there are some real serious 
concerns for consumers.
  All we are saying is, again, our priority is the consumers. If that 
is not the priority of my Republican friends, fine; you can defend the 
language that you put into this bill. But there is controversy over 
this, and we ought to be able to debate it. To simply say, you know, 
``Oh, if we made it in order, it would fail anyway,'' is that going to 
be the new kind of standard for making amendments in order, that we are 
only going to allow amendments to come to the floor that we absolutely 
know will pass? Boy, that is a whole new standard that the Rules 
Committee and the Republican majority are now going to try to enforce.
  Again, one amendment, one by the ranking member of the committee of 
jurisdiction--one. That is it, one. Give her 10 minutes.
  I mean, I don't get why this had to be completely closed. But in any 
event, you are in charge. You can do whatever you want. And this place 
is being run under the strictest, most closed process, as I mentioned 
before, in the history of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Financial Services, whose amendment was germane and was deliberately 
not made in order by the Republicans on the Rules Committee last night.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules 
Committee, for the defense that he is putting up relative to my 
amendment.
  Yes, I went to the Rules Committee, and, yes, I attempted to have an 
amendment that would protect our consumers. So it is clear that the 
opposite side of the aisle did not want the public to know about this 
amendment.
  Why didn't they want this amendment debated? It is because they know 
that our consumers need to have the kind of protection that would allow 
them to go into court and raise questions about whether or not they are 
being defrauded, they are being misled, they are not being told the 
truth when they close on these mortgage deals.
  Because the Rules Committee decided that we could not have a debate 
on my amendment, we have to take every opportunity to try to unveil why 
they are keeping this amendment down, why they don't want to debate it. 
As a matter of fact, I am so surprised that my colleague on the 
opposite side of the aisle tried to make this sound as if the Democrats 
didn't want a grace period, that we didn't want a hold harmless period. 
That is absolutely not true.
  We agreed with Mr. Cordray, who heads the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, that there should be a grace period. We understood 
when the industry talked about the fact that they had a lot of work to 
do to make sure that they got the right forms, that they trained their 
people, that they came in compliance with the new rules that were 
created under Dodd-Frank. So we agreed.
  Okay, Mr. Cordray said, I will not implement enforcement. I 
understand what you are saying. And Democrats agreed. We will set a 
grace period. It is okay.
  You keep trying to debate this bill about the grace period. That is 
not an issue. That is not an issue at all. We agree to the grace 
period. Go, do your work; get your papers all worked out; get your 
staff all trained. But that is not what this issue is about.
  This issue is about, where do you stand with consumers? Are you 
willing to say to consumers that if, in fact, you believe that you have 
been harmed in this closing, that all of a sudden the estimated costs 
are highly different, they are so different from what the final costs 
are--if you want to say to the consumer you don't have a right to go 
into court and raise that question, then you are against the consumers. 
The consumers should have a right to have their day in court despite 
the grace period.
  The grace period should not be a period where you simply are getting 
your papers in order and you are training your staff. It should be a 
period where you still have a guarantee that you are not going to be 
tricked at closing time, that you are not going to be misled, that you 
are not going to be undermined in any way.
  If you want this to be a grace period where folks can say, ``Ah, I 
have an opportunity now,'' the lender can say, ``I have an opportunity 
to get a little more money out of this deal,'' and then you would say 
if they misled the consumer that the consumer does not have a right at 
all to raise a question about it, I don't think so. So we on this side 
of the aisle, we stand with consumers.
  When consumers decide to purchase a home, it is the biggest purchase 
of most people's lives, and they should be afforded the broadest 
recourse available under the law.
  Many errors can occur in this complicated process, some made in good 
faith, some that are not. For example, a lender might fail to properly 
disclose key loan terms, such as annual interest rates, finance 
charges, and other critical information associated with purchasing a 
home. If a borrower feels that they have been harmed, they should have 
an opportunity to have their day in court without limitation.
  I fully support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
announcement that it would engage in restrained enforcement actions 
against

[[Page H6853]]

lenders under their new mortgage disclosure rules. The Bureau made 
similar assurances in response to the mortgage underwriting and 
servicing rules that went into effect last year. And I fully expect the 
Bureau to do the same with these new disclosure rules that they have 
always done, to be responsive to Congress, industry, and other relevant 
stakeholders, and to make thoughtful decisions on the best way to 
proceed in protecting consumers. I have no reason to believe that they 
will not be as thoughtful in their approach to the new mortgage 
disclosures as they were with the mortgage underwriting and servicing 
rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. While I also support the provisions 
of H.R. 3192 that are consistent with the CFPB's action to date, my 
support ends when the vital consumer protections, like the private 
right of action afforded to consumers under the Truth in Lending Act, 
are weakened or, worse, completely eliminated.
  Under current law, consumers that feel that a lender provided an 
inaccurate or misleading mortgage disclosure can file suit under the 
Truth in Lending Act, and lenders are forced to prove that the 
disclosures they provided were consistent with the act. The burden of 
proof is properly placed with the lenders, as they have the resources 
to prove their good faith intent, and consumers often have limited 
information at the time they file suit. H.R. 3192, however, would 
shield the lenders from liability if an error was committed in good 
faith even if a consumer relied on this information to their detriment.

  The act or the effect of the good faith provision is that it requires 
that consumers prove from the onset of an action filed against a lender 
that an error was not made in good faith, a burden of proof that a 
borrower simply lacks the means to make. As a result, the good faith 
requirement in H.R. 3192 operates as yet another hurdle for consumers 
and is a harmful departure from current law.
  So I offered the amendment. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) is correct. Why couldn't we have a debate on it? It is a very 
simple amendment.
  This would help provide clarity to the marketplace while also 
protecting consumers. The amendment would simply restore a consumer's 
existing rights under TILA to bring an action during the temporary safe 
harbor period established by H.R. 3192 even if the action was filed in 
response to an error made by a lender in good faith.
  Let me just say, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of 
consumers who expect you to protect them?
  We have gone through a crisis in this country. We had a subprime 
meltdown. We discovered that consumers had been tricked. People buying 
homes had been misled. We discovered that they had loans that, well, 
they didn't even understand. We don't want to go back there. We want to 
protect consumers, and we have a right to do that. This amendment would 
have helped clarify that. You did not afford us that.
  Mr. STIVERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to make clear.
  Earlier in my remarks, I acknowledged that the other side of the 
aisle agrees with us on an administrative grace period. The problem is, 
if they don't agree to both an administrative grace period and a grace 
period with regard to lawsuits for people acting in good faith--the key 
words here are ``good faith''--then there is no grace period because 
people will just choose to go sue during the grace period, and there 
will be no grace period.
  It was good to hear the gentlewoman from California acknowledge that 
this is only a temporary good faith exception. It only lasts until 
February 1, 2016. It is just like the administrative grace period, and 
it only protects people in good faith.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just ask the gentlewoman from California whether 
she believes somebody can act in good faith and also deceive and 
mislead at the same time, because her remarks imply that you can act in 
good faith while misleading and deceiving people.

                              {time}  1315

  I am not an attorney, but I would argue that good faith is really 
clear, and you are not acting in good faith when you deceive and 
mislead. Again, this bill should have been on the suspension calendar.
  We shouldn't even have to be wasting time--valuable time--that we 
should be dealing with really important issues, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts acknowledged earlier. But I did want to correct the 
Record on a few of those things.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the key difference we have here is about whether 
good faith means anything. I would argue that the courts have found 
good faith means something. Every American knows what good faith is. 
This does not shift the burden. Those people being sued have to prove 
they acted in good faith.
  So I think this is a really clear bill that provides a grace period 
for a limited amount of time, through February 1, 2016. But you have to 
provide both an administrative grace period and a grace period in the 
courts or there is no grace period at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Barr), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I applaud and thank my colleague from Ohio and 
my colleague from Arkansas for their leadership on this issue.
  On May 22, I sent a bipartisan letter with my colleague, 
Congresswoman Maloney, to CFPB Director Richard Cordray requesting a 
grace period for compliance with the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure 
rule, or TRID. The letter was signed by 254 Members of Congress. Of 
those, 92 were Democrats.
  TRID is a complex rule and compliance term requiring new, untested 
software to harmonize data from realtors, mortgage brokers, lenders, 
land title agents, and others involved in the closing process. All that 
our letter requested was a grace period for those making good faith 
efforts to comply with the rule. No delay in the rule, no reproposal, 
just a grace period.
  We have listened to our constituents, and what they tell us is that 
innocent mistakes are inevitable as the disclosure software is tested 
in the real world for the first time. In fact, CFPB cited a mistake as 
the reason to delay implementation of the rule from August 1 until this 
past Saturday, October 3.
  However, that delay and promises of sensitive enforcement do nothing 
to provide certainty that honest mistakes during the early days of 
TRID, when these untested systems are used in real transactions, will 
not be punished with fines and lawsuits. If the Bureau is allowed to 
make mistakes, then our constituents should also be allowed to make 
innocent mistakes without penalty for a brief period of time to 
establish the systems necessary to reliably comply.
  The Bureau, however, has proven unwilling to act. So today we 
consider a bill that implements the grace period requested in that 
letter. The Homebuyers Assistance Act simply provides a grace period 
until February 1, 2016, to ensure that home buyers and sellers can be 
assured their transaction will not be delayed and industry participants 
won't need to fear enforcement actions or frivolous lawsuits over data 
issues or typos.
  It is what 92 of our Democratic colleagues requested just 5 months 
ago. But today, faced with a legislative solution to the problem, our 
colleagues are balking. The President has issued a veto threat. Leader 
Pelosi is whipping her members against the bill.
  This is quite baffling. It seems to me that the interests of trial 
lawyers are trumping those of consumers trying to buy or sell their 
homes. Make no mistake. Allowing immediate legal liability under TRID 
only benefits litigious attorneys and overzealous bureaucrats.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the 
same.
  In closing, let me just address the response that we should be on the 
side of consumers. That is absolutely correct. We should be on the side 
of consumers. What my constituents tell me back home is that, 
unfortunately, this new regulation doesn't make home buying simpler.
  In fact, the number of pages are the same. Look at the regulation. Is 
this

[[Page H6854]]

pro-consumer? This is the regulation from Washington. This is complex. 
This is not simplification for consumers. This makes the home buying 
process more difficult.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this makes the home buying process more difficult for 
consumers. But at the end of the day, even if we are going to go 
forward with this new, complicated regulation, 1,800 pages or so, at 
least--at least--give the participants--the closing attorneys, the 
title insurance agents, the Realtors, the advocates for the home 
buyers, and the advocates for the consumers--let them have a brief 
period of time where they can get up to speed with the complexity of 
this rule so that innocent mistakes are not punished and that home 
buyers are not punished.
  Let's set the politics aside on this. This is not about Democrat or 
Republican here. We have got a big bipartisan letter. This is something 
that protects our constituents. This is what our constituents are 
telling us they need to come into compliance with this new, complex 
law.
  Isn't buying and selling a home, isn't moving from home to home, 
complex enough? Let's not let the bureaucrats make it even more 
difficult.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Kentucky, I signed his letter. I agree with him. There should be a 
grace period. If that is what we were talking about right now, I don't 
think there would be much of a debate. We got what we wanted.
  But ``yes'' is not a good enough answer for some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. So you bring something that might be a 
redundant bill. But I would be less exercised over voting for a 
redundant bill if that is all it was. But you expanded it. You added 
something that wasn't in the letter. Basically, you added something 
that we strongly believe jeopardizes consumers.
  Now, what makes us even more exercised over here is that the Rules 
Committee reported out a rule that denied the right of the ranking 
member of the Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters of California, 
to bring an amendment to remedy that to the floor--a totally closed 
rule.
  The one real controversy about what we are doing here today is this 
provision that we think hurts consumers, and we can't have a vote on 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment was germane. She is the ranking member. We 
are only asking for 1 minute. We are not doing anything else here of 
any consequence. We are not trying to figure out our long-term budget 
problems. So you could give us another 10 minutes to debate an 
amendment, and you have chosen to not do that.
  I will just say one other thing. Everybody holds up that prop, the 
1,800 pages of regulations. But let's just help break it down because 
we are into a lot of props in this place. We ought to also understand 
what the facts are.

  First, the 1,800 pages are contained in the double-spaced document. 
The text in the Federal Register is actually not 1,800 pages, but 634 
pages, roughly one-third of that. The rule itself, the regulatory text, 
is only 26 pages--only 26 pages.
  Mr. Speaker, 171 pages are sample and model forms which my friends on 
the other side of the aisle say we want the agency to help provide 
industry with concrete guidance. So there are 171 pages of sample and 
model forms in there. We have further breakdown here if my friends are 
interested.
  Let's be clear. None of us here object. In fact, we all support the 
grace period. That is not what is contentious about this debate.
  It is this anti-consumer provision that has been inserted in this 
bill by my Republican friends that have us concerned. At a minimum, the 
Rules Committee ought to have allowed for there to be a debate where 
that could be voted up or down. If my friends don't like it, they can 
vote ``no.''
  Instead, we hear excuses, Oh, no, it wasn't offered in the full 
committee, as if that somehow is a reason to deny a Member the right to 
offer an amendment to the floor; Oh, we can't make it in order because, 
oh, it won't pass anyway, a new standard now by the Rules Committee in 
terms of what will be made in order.
  Just give us the amendment. Let's have a real debate. Let's actually 
be deliberative for a change here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
yield for the purpose of a colloquy?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STIVERS. I am curious if you are arguing--because it sounds to me 
like the gentleman from Massachusetts is arguing that we only want to 
give people protections from administrative actions; we don't want to 
give them equal protection in the courts that they are getting from 
administrative regulations when they are acting in good faith.
  Is that what you are arguing?
  Mr. McGOVERN. What I am arguing----
  Mr. STIVERS. If they are acting in good faith, they should still be 
allowed to be sued and they should still have all the penalties for a 
wrong comma----
  Mr. McGOVERN. What I am arguing----
  Mr. STIVERS.--even if they are acting in good faith? I will yield the 
gentleman some time in a second.
  But is that what you are arguing? If there is a comma misplaced or 
they accidentally tried to comply, but in good faith made an accident, 
you think they should suffer all the slings and arrows in court, even 
though they wouldn't suffer any slings and arrows from regulators?
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to answer that question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. What I have argued is that the burden shouldn't be on 
the consumer. Your legislation adds a whole new dimension to this 
debate that, quite frankly, has us concerned. At a minimum, it deserves 
a debate on this floor.
  This is the rule. We are debating how we are going to debate the 
underlying legislation. I have not yet heard one reason why we can't 
have an amendment to try to correct what we think is an injustice and a 
potential harmful impact on our consumers.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear an answer there. But the 
point is people deserve equal protection during a grace period in the 
courts if they acted in good faith. The key here is good faith. It is 
written right into the bill.
  They deserve the same protections in court if they act in good faith 
that they deserve from administrative action from the regulators. They 
deserve the same help and remediation to get their deficits corrected 
as opposed to punitive action.
  The problem is, without that provision--and let me add this is a 
temporary provision until February 1, 2016. The good faith protections 
don't even last past February 1. It is the same protection for the same 
time period in the courts as from administrative action.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, just briefly in response to my colleague from 
Massachusetts and the analysis that this 1,800-page regulation is just 
a prop and he blames about 171 pages on explanations and guidance and 
suggests that, well, that is a good thing, we want explanations and 
guidance from the bureaucrats to explain how this works, let me tell 
you what my constituents back in Kentucky are telling me what happens 
in the real world.
  In the real world, how closing attorneys--this is a closing attorney 
in Kentucky who says this interprets this stack of paper, and he says, 
``I am going to have to do two closings, a TRID-compliant closing and 
then another closing that actually informs my client what is going on 
in the transaction.''
  Now, is that simplifying things for consumers? Does that make things 
easier for a home buyer and a home seller to have two closings, one 
that is TRID-compliant, compliant with the bureaucracy, and one that 
actually helps the home buyer with a HUD settlement statement? I don't 
think so.

[[Page H6855]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the point here is that we should be making things 
easier. If it is so doggone complicated that you have to have two 
closings, at least give us 6 months to figure this thing out, 6 months 
of a grace period for good faith efforts to come into compliance where 
innocent mistakes happen.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I would request how much time each side has 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time, and I would inform my colleague I am prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again say we have no objection to a 
grace period. In fact, we support it. I signed the gentleman from 
Kentucky's letter. That is not the controversy here. It is what we 
think is language that could do potential harm to consumers.
  Let me just say to the gentleman, in the real world, we have seen 
consumers get a raw deal time and time again, in large part because of 
the lack of oversight and the lack of defense they get in this Chamber.
  So, yes, we are standing up for consumers because we don't want to 
see them continue to get a raw deal. That is what we are concerned 
about.
  If you want to disagree with me on that, fine. But that is no reason 
to not allow there to be a debate on an amendment that is germane to 
this bill that would correct what we think is a flaw in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters.)
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS from California. Mr. Speaker and Members, we have 
to keep saying over and over again that this is not about the grace 
period. They keep arguing that somehow they favor a grace period, and 
we do not.
  We have made it clear that is not what the debate is about. We 
support a grace period. Not only that, Mr. Cordray at the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau supports a grace period. That is not the 
argument here.
  The argument is what you don't want to talk about, my amendment that 
I attempted. You came to this floor with a closed rule to keep us from 
talking about an amendment that would protect the consumers. My 
amendment would allow that consumers have a right to have their day in 
court.
  When you talk about good faith and the way that this bill is written, 
of course. In my opinion, when a consumer in this grace period takes a 
look at the documents and if it is simply a comma, as one has 
indicated, well, that could be a mistake in good faith, and the lender 
will be okay.

                              {time}  1330

  But when the interest rates change, when there are more fees than 
were anticipated, when the cost of that mortgage goes up and the 
consumer says, ``Hey, this is not what I really intended. This is not 
what I agreed to,'' and the lender says, ``Sorry, that is it. That is 
what you signed up for,'' then the consumer has a right to go to court. 
And even though you would place the responsibility on the consumer to 
have to prove that the lender did not act in good faith, different from 
what the law is now, that consumer should have the right to go to court 
and make his or her case.
  That is what this amendment is all about, and you know it. It is not 
about bringing your props in trying to say this is the bill. That is 
not the bill. You have all of the comments and everything else that is 
associated with the bill. So let's get some truth out here and have 
people understand what the amendment is and not just props showing that 
you have thousands of pages of a bill.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter signed by a number of 
civil rights organizations, all opposed to this bill because of the 
provision that Ms. Waters and I have been talking about now for close 
to an hour.

                                                  October 5, 2015.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 3192, which insulates lenders from accountability 
     when they make misleading disclosures to homeowners. The 
     bill, which suspends liability to individuals and government 
     for the first four months after the new mortgage disclosure 
     rules take effect, undermines compliance with the new rules 
     by letting lenders off the hook even where homeowners have 
     been harmed. Homeowners who would receive false or misleading 
     mortgage cost disclosures during such a period would have no 
     remedy. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent by suspending 
     liability where legal rules apply.
       The mortgage industry, after having had approximately two 
     years to implement the new disclosure requirements, was given 
     an additional reprieve when the effective date was extended 
     to October 3, 2015. Moreover, the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau has repeatedly demonstrated its 
     responsiveness to concerns about implementation of this rule 
     and to mortgage rules generally. Director Cordray announced 
     in June that the Bureau would be sensitive to good faith 
     efforts to implement the new rule, and recently the Bureau 
     and the prudential regulators offered greater detail on how 
     initial examinations for compliance with the rule will take 
     into account systems adopted to promote compliance. The 
     Bureau successfully used a similar approach for 
     implementation of the ability to repay rule and also 
     demonstrated its responsiveness to lenders by adjusting the 
     small creditor definition for that rule.
       The time has now come to let the combined TILA/RESPA 
     disclosures take effect. The disclosure form will give 
     consumers expanded information before making the biggest 
     purchase of their lives. A carve-out will provide an 
     opportunity for some to evade the rules and will generally 
     inhibit incentives to comply promptly. A rule without 
     enforcement is no rule at all.
       H.R. 3192 seeks to establish a ``good faith'' standard for 
     exemption from the rule. However, the CFPB already has the 
     authority to take into account good-faith efforts to comply 
     with regulations. In contrast, a homeowner who receives false 
     or misleading disclosures would face significant hurdles in 
     overcoming a good-faith requirement. Even if a lender acted 
     in good faith, the homeowner would still have agreed to the 
     loan based on incorrect information and would have no 
     recourse.
       It would be dangerous to set a new precedent of suspending 
     private enforcement for violations of a law that is in 
     effect. The ability of consumers to protect themselves is 
     essential to the efficacy of legal requirements. An 
     individual homeowner, however, is not in a position to prove 
     whether the lender operated in good faith. While few 
     homeowners ever bring a legal case, those who do generally 
     have faced substantial harm and have a right to redress.
       Lenders are not subject to any liability at all under the 
     Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for violations 
     of the disclosure requirements because the law does not allow 
     for private rights of action for such cases. In addition, the 
     Truth in Lending Act (TILA) already includes provisions 
     protecting creditors from errors made in good faith (such as 
     timing of disclosures). For TILA errors involving numerical 
     disclosures, Congress already has allowed creditors to 
     overstate the actual amount without penalty, and the CFPB's 
     rule for the new disclosures permits third party fees to 
     exceed the earlier estimates by up to ten percent. As a 
     result, homeowners who seek redress have received markedly 
     inaccurate disclosures.
       Litigation is a last resort and rarely undertaken. Few 
     consumers seek out attorneys even when they are injured. 
     Moreover, TILA provides for payment of attorney fees only if 
     the lawsuit is successful, so attorneys are reluctant to take 
     on cases unless violations are clear.
       The incidence of private litigation under the Truth in 
     Lending Act is fairly rare, especially in comparison to the 
     volume of mortgage loans and credit generally outstanding in 
     the United States. Even during a financial crisis that 
     rivaled the Great Depression, only a tiny fraction of 
     mortgage loans became the focus of TILA litigation.
       We urge you to oppose H.R. 3192, which would remove key 
     incentives for lenders to comply with the new mortgage 
     disclosures and leave homeowners who have been misled with no 
     recourse.
           Sincerely,
     Americans for Financial Reform
     California Reinvestment Coalition
     Connecticut Fair Housing Center
     Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED)
     Empire Justice Center
     Homeownership Preservation Foundation
     Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
     Local Initiatives Support Corporation
     NAACP
     National Association of Consumer Advocates
     National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
         clients)
     National Fair Housing Alliance

[[Page H6856]]

     North Carolina Justice Center
     U.S. PIRG
     Woodstock Institute.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear we have a disagreement here, 
and it ought to be resolved in an open and fair fashion with a debate 
and a vote on an amendment. We are not going to have that.
  So I am just going to close by saying to my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle I have got a radical idea for what I think is the greatest 
democratic institution in the world, the United States Congress. That 
radical idea is that we ought to allow a little democracy to happen 
here. We ought to not be afraid of debate. We ought to not be afraid of 
allowing at least one amendment--that is all, one amendment--to come to 
the floor so that the concerns that we have voiced on our side of the 
aisle, a worry that consumers will once again become victims and get a 
raw deal, could be avoided. We ought to have that debate, and we ought 
to vote up or down on it.
  This grace period is, as I said, supported by everybody. It is 
supported by the CFPB. We are all on board on that. That is not the 
controversy. The controversy is this added stuff. And the way the 
majority has decided to handle this--to shut the whole process down--
that is, I think, beneath what this institution should be about.
  So I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to 
please vote against this rule. Send a message to the leadership here 
that we need to do this better. We need a better process. This process 
is lousy, and we all should be fed up with it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address the thing that the gentleman has 
continued to talk about: good faith.
  Good faith is known in all 50 States. It has been enacted in the 
Uniform Commercial Code. It is kind of interpreted two ways.
  And, by the way, the defendants are the ones who have to prove they 
acted in good faith, not the litigants, not the people who bring the 
lawsuit, but the defendants have to meet one of two standards to prove 
they acted in good faith.
  Number one is a reasonableness standard. In general, they relied on 
something. They were reasonable in their dealings. The plaintiff does 
not have to prove anything, just the defendant.
  The second also uses reasonableness, but it is about intent. If they 
intended to comply with the standard, that is the other thing that the 
defendant brings forward.
  I want to be clear here. Nothing changes the standard for a plaintiff 
in this. So this whole argument about whether somebody can act in good 
faith and yet deceive people, any court in the land would say that 
can't happen. You can't deceive somebody and say you acted in good 
faith. That is not good faith.
  So we stand with consumers who want to close on their homes for the 
American Dream in a timely way. We also stand by those who are trying 
in good faith to comply with 1,886 pages of regulation. It is important 
to note that this is a temporary standard through February 1, 2016, to 
give people a grace period from both administrative actions and legal 
actions. You have to give them a grace period in both categories.
  If you only give an administrative grace period, as the other side of 
the aisle has argued, everyone will simply run to the courts and there 
is no grace period there for good faith efforts. Good faith is 
important. It means something. We stand with consumers. We do not stand 
with trial lawyers.
  This bill allows a transition period to occur and ensure that buyers 
and sellers can have closings during that period, and those that are 
acting in good faith will be protected from both regulation and 
litigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________